And don't get me wrong, I'm not just saying he's like that. In the same discussion he will bring up how platform exclusives are killing gaming and shouldn't exist when Sony exclusives are brought up, but then turn around and brag how Good console exclusives are when an Xbox exclusive is brought up. This is not the first time things played out as they are, personally I don't take into account anything Phil Spencer says because he will say whatever it takes to maximize profit.
Nvidia was obsessed with bringing down Radeon when it was owned by ATI and it didn't lessen when it went over to It's not conjecture, it's deduction. But I've been watching these these GPU deals for twenty years, and whenever a company advertises an Nvidia support, be it PhysX or DLSS, or whatever other flavor of the month Nvidia is putting out, it's always been an exclusivity deal that resulted in the game getting zero optimization for other manufacturers. If NGS gets vulkan support, I'll happily eat my words, I'd love nothing more than to be wrong on this one. When sega FINALLY put out PSO2 global after what, like 8 years of waiting? They made like 3 million within a couple weeks which should be more than enough to show any company that the interest is there and you'd want to expand the audience as much as possible, but then they keep taking these one-sided deals that practically ignore half the potential playerbase. (There are technically ways to trick the game to convert DX calls into vulkan but it's not the same performance as native support)Įxclusivity deals were a mistake. First microsoft basically ensures NGS will never come out on PS5 in the west, then Nvidia ensures the game will never get native Vulkan support. This is what you do when you talk to your friends about literally anything, you're introducing segregationism because you know something they don't and now maybe they want it. Because how advertising works since the dawn of time is "these guys might have this and you don't, so maybe you want it". Are you identifying a problem with it, or are you stating the obvious, because I can't tell. Which is just a buzz-word, to get a reaction out of people who don't understand how it actually works.Īnd yeah, that's how advertising literally works as well. What, so they just shouldn't advertise a new thing they added to the game? I suppose if you think of it that way, everything is segregationism. What you've basically said is that "advertising anything means segregationism because people know a feature exists". It's like making an argument for on-disk DLC, because RTX rigs can already do this, it just needs to be put into the game and so it has. People who already have the tech, more than anyone. How does it even have any direct impact on the player as an individual? All this does is impact certain players' personal experience with the game's FPS who can benefit from the feature. This really isn't the same as that example of segregationism because there isn't an apparent attempt at telling you in-game that "these players use DLSS" and you don't. Unlike your Fortnite example, players don't see the difference while playing with others, which is how that entire example works at its core. The example you use literally doesn't apply because it doesn't even make any sense here, we aren't matching non-DLSS players with DLSS players and showing them how much better it is as they play. This doesn't have that effect either because it's literally just including a new feature to a game that could use it. Sure, the marketing mentality of it does, but the segregationism has nothing to do with separating players' ability to play the game. All due respect, I'm not sure that really applies in a meaningful way here.